Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that two or three years ago, Brent PCT was in a parlous state. In fact, as recently as three years ago, 104 NHS organisations were in deficit, whereas now the figure is just 3 per cent. There has been a remarkable turnaround, so I would like to pay tribute not only to the management of the PCT in my hon. Friend's area—as he rightly says, the PCT will now be able to deliver sustainable and constantly improving NHS services to his constituents—but all the managers throughout the country who have turned around their health care organisations in such a way.

Phil Hope: I understand the hon. Lady's concerns. It just surprises me sometimes when Opposition Front-Bench spokespersons reel off a list of statistics without asking questions and, more importantly, without acknowledging the substantial extra investment that this Labour Government have put in place and which her party voted against in every Budget since 1997. The issues that she highlights are serious and need to be addressed. I am pleased that the suicide rate in England continues to fall. It is now at its lowest since records began in 1861, and is among the lowest in Europe. I am also pleased that the World Health Organisation said:
	"The ambition and pace of change in England has been remarkable over the last 10 years, and mental health services here are increasingly being seen across Europe as a model to follow."
	That is a record that the Labour Government are proud of, but we know that there is more to do and we will continue to press forward to improve services across the country.

Jacqui Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for those words, and also for his extremely important work in the Home Office, not least in setting up and reorganising the structure of government to ensure that, in the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, we have a strong strategic lead for taking this work forward across government, and his work in highlighting the evolving nature of the threat and the requirement for us to evolve how we dealt with it. I agree with him that while we depend on those in the police, the security and intelligence agencies and the armed forces to tackle terrorism, it is not enough to expect that they will enable us to mitigate that threat. Each of us has a role, and it is in recognition of that that we have—unprecedentedly, I think—made all these 170-plus pages unclassified and available to the public. It is why we have also ensured that we have a more digestable version that the public can read too. He rightly says that it is when everybody understands not that there is a lot to fear, but that there is a lot to be gained by being vigilant and by having a role to play in helping to counter terror, that we will truly be safer and more confident in this country about our security.

Jacqui Smith: My right hon. Friend is exactly right; that is the reason why all four P's that I have outlined today are fundamentally important and why, in the short term, we do need to take action to disrupt terrorist plots and to bring terrorists to justice. It is also why we have focused considerable effort and funding on the second P—Prevent—and why the way in which we prevent people from becoming violent extremists and from supporting terrorism, both in this country and abroad, will be the defining factor in whether we can help to reduce the risk in the longer term.

Pension Credit and Personal Expense Allowance (Duty of Consultation and Review)

Paul Burstow: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the periodic review of the capital limits and tariff income rules and the personal expense allowance; to make provision for consultations on the level of those allowances and rules; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill I wish to introduce seeks to tackle two injustices. The first concerns the penalty that over 500,000 thrifty pensioners face as a result of benefit rules which, in effect, assume that they are earning 8 per cent. interest on their savings. The second concerns 250,000 frail pensioners in care homes who are reliant on state support and are left with just £21.15 a week to cover their personal living costs.
	Under existing benefit rules—the so-called tariff income rules—pensioners with savings over £6,000 who qualify for pension credit are assumed to be earning anything up to 8 per cent. interest on their savings. Whenever I talk about this matter with pensioner and other groups in my constituency, there is one of two reactions—derisive laughter or disbelief turning to outrage, often followed by the question, "Which bank gives that much interest on savings? I want to move my savings there straight away."
	A rate of 8 per cent. is significantly higher than any savings or investment account currently available, and it has not changed, up or down, since 2003. Benefit entitlement is calculated on an assumed rate of return that pensioners receive from their savings. Any savings below £6,000 are disregarded, but for every £500 above that, a saver is assumed to earn £1 per week from their investment.
	My Bill would place a duty on the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to review the tariff income rules and the level of capital. By placing a duty on the Secretary of State to consult widely about the rules and limits, I hope the Bill will force the Government to address the growing anomaly which discriminates against thrifty pensioners. I would go further, but that is far as the rules of the House allow me in a ten-minute Bill.
	The Government argue that the tariff income rules do not represent a rate of return for investing capital, but are there to
	"provide a simple method of calculating the weekly contribution that people with capital in excess of £6,000 (or £10,000 if in a care home) are expected to make from those resources".
	However, the rules imply that pensioners with savings over £6,000 are receiving up to 8 per cent. interest. Back in the real world, where, for example, an individual savings account provided by the Government-backed National Savings and Investments currently offers only 1.62 to 2.16 per cent., that notion bears no scrutiny whatever. More than 500,000 pensioners are having their income overestimated, and are missing out on pension credit and other benefits to which they should be entitled.
	The Government calculate, for example, that a pensioner with savings of £16,000 earns £1,080 per annum in interest. In the real world of, for example, National Savings and Investments ISAs, such savings would generate £259 to £345 a year. The Government's assumption that such an interest rate is unrealistic is costing such pensioners at least £734 per year. As real interest rates fall, hard-pressed pensioners are being forced to run their savings down at ever faster rates. That is unfair and needs to be changed.
	As for the second injustice, the personal expenses allowance is the only source of income for care home residents whose care is funded by the local authority. At the moment, 250,000 residents receive that support. Means-testing rules require those entering care homes with savings of less than £22,250 to surrender to the state their income, including their state pension and assets to cover the cost of their care. The personal expenses allowance is the amount that residents are allowed to keep for personal expenditure each week, and it currently stands at £21.15—about £3 a day. That amount is the only source of income for local authority-funded care home residents and is intended to pay for toiletries, clothes, gifts for family and friends, travel, hobbies, hairdressing and other leisure activities. Some have had to use that money to pay for health services such as chiropody and physiotherapy. In some cases, the personal expenses allowance is being called on to top up the fees that people pay in care homes. The personal expenses allowance is due to rise this April by 75p a week.
	The case for reform and an increase is compelling. It has the support of many older people's charities, as it is vital to ensure the dignity and self-respect of residents and to give them a certain amount of independence. Age Concern, Help the Aged and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have all published reports demonstrating that the personal expenses allowance is crucial to the dignity of older people and must therefore be raised, as many elderly people live in poverty or their relatives supplement their allowances from their own incomes.
	The Joseph Rowntree Foundation conducted research among pensioners and concluded that the minimum such amount needed by a single pensioner to maintain an acceptable standard of living is £42 per week. The Royal British Legion, in its Return to Rationing campaign, also calls for a higher personal expenses allowance. In 2005, the Work and Pensions Committee stated:
	"The Committee remains concerned at the low level of the Personal Expenses Allowance and repeats the recommendation of the Social Security Committee that the Government should 'conduct research to establish the amount necessary to enable pensioners in institutional care to live their lives with dignity.'"
	Three years later, the then care services Minister, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), twice gave an undertaking to Parliament that a public consultation would be carried out that included the rate of the personal expenses allowance.
	However, the current care services Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), who is sitting on the Front Bench, issued a written statement in January 2009 in which he refused to initiate a consultation on the level of the personal expenses allowance. How does that square with the Department of Health's Dignity in Care campaign launched in November 2006, the stated aim of which is to ensure that older people are shown dignity and respect at all stages of their care? In that campaign, one of the Department's dignity tests is
	"to enable people to maintain the maximum possible level of independence, choice and control."
	The low level of the personal expenses allowance compromises the quality of life and dignity of older people by restricting their ability to meet their essential physical and social well-being needs. An amount of £21.15 is simply not enough.
	My Bill would place a duty on the Secretary of State for Health to undertake an annual review of the level of the personal expenses allowance, including public consultation, so that it can be increased to a level that guarantees a decent, minimum standard of living. Thrifty and frail pensioners in this country deserve a better deal than they are getting on such matters from this Government. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Mr. Paul Burstow, Steve Webb, Sandra Gidley, Tom Brake, Susan Kramer and Greg Mulholland present the Bill.
	Mr. Paul Burstow accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 June, and to be printed (Bill 80).

Dominic Grieve: Yes. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for that fact that, in the time allowed, I have not dealt with that point.
	The question of insulting behaviour raises an important issue. I am not sure that I can do full justice to it in this short debate, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to revisit it, I shall be happy to discuss it carefully with him. I can see that there may well be merit in getting rid of an expression that, I think, carries a number of connotations in wider legislation and that may be undesirable. There is, however, an issue that I think we cannot completely avoid. In some cases, insult, particularly if it takes place in a public arena, can reach a point at which it becomes incitement to a breach of the peace. We must guard against that possibility, but subject to that, I am sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman has said.
	For the present, we have quite a simple issue to deal with. We have a piece of legislation, passed on to the statute book last summer, that has not yet been brought into operation and that has not yet been given the chance to see whether it works. I do not see anything in Lord Waddington's amendment to justify its deletion at present. Its support goes much wider than people with a religious viewpoint. It extends across a wide spectrum of those who have deep anxieties about the erosion of freedom of speech, including within the theatrical world, as has been shown by Rowan Atkinson.
	For those reasons, although I am mindful of the mischief that we are trying to address and I want the incitement of hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation to be prohibited, I believe that the amendment does nothing to prevent from happening that and does a great deal to ensure that the legislation that we pass is balanced. For those reasons, I support the amendment.

Bridget Prentice: Of course the House can change its mind, and we will discover in the Lobbies in 20 minutes or so whether the House has changed its mind, but I think that the fact that this was introduced last year for an offence that has not yet been put on the statute book is a pretty persuasive argument for believing that that was the House's view at that time.
	We had long debates about the guidance and about what guidance should be issued. There is a clear need for guidance, as there always is when any new offence is introduced. The Ministry of Justice will provide short explanatory guidance about the offence. The Crown Prosecution Service will issue guidance for prosecutors, and the Association of Chief Police Officers will revise its hate crime manual to include guidance on all incitement to hatred offences. All the guidance will be available before the offence comes into force. However, I am quite persuaded by the argument put by the hon. Member for Cambridge, and I would like to reflect on it. Therefore, although I ask him to withdraw new clause 11, I invite him to take up the opportunity of meeting the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether it would be appropriate to make the guidance statutory.
	I fully understand the motivation behind new clause 37, but I believe that it is unnecessary. Allegations about offences, and specifically about child sex offences, are a very easy and damaging way of stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. Such allegations are damaging and distasteful and should be challenged, but we believe that it is not necessary to mention them specifically in the offence. In many instances, allegations linking sexual orientation with child sex offences will be threatening as well as distasteful, and will be caught by the offence. However, when the circumstances mean an allegation is not threatening, it will not be caught, and we think that is right.

Henry Bellingham: In addition to new clause 19, which stands in my names and those of my hon. and learned Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Timpson), I plan to discuss our amendments 78 to 88. I also want to comment on Government amendment 25.
	Our new clause 19 would remove the immunity of Government Departments from prosecution, because the Government's record on handling, storing and transporting confidential data is appalling. I am afraid that the Ministry of Justice is one of the worst offenders. A computer hard drive containing the details of up to 5,000 employees of the National Offender Management Service in England and Wales was lost by the private firm, EDS. Despite the loss having occurred in July 2007, the Justice Secretary was not told until September 2008. In August last year, the names and addresses, details of convictions and even jail release dates of almost 130,000 people were lost when a computer memory stick went missing. It was being used by an employee of a private contractor working for the MOJ. The Information Commissioner said at the time that the data were a "toxic liability", and described the loss as "deeply worrying".
	The Ministry of Defence is another serial offender. Some time ago, the Defence Secretary of the time was forced to revise upwards the estimate of the number of laptops stolen from his Department in the previous four years from 347 to 658. Furthermore, in January last year, the then Defence Secretary revealed that an MOD laptop, which contained the details of 600,000 people, had been stolen from the boot of a naval officer's car in Birmingham. The computer contained unencrypted lists of names, addresses, bank and driving licence details, national insurance and national health service numbers and so on—an appalling security lapse.
	In 2007, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs had the so-called discgate scandal, in which 25 million records were lost. In November that year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that two CDs containing child benefit data had been lost in transit to the National Audit Office. Also in November that year, HMRC lost the personal details of 15,000 Standard Life pension holders, after a CD was lost in transit by an external courier.
	Many other Departments have lost data, including the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Communities and Local Government. Many of the subsequent inquiries revealed lax security procedures, confused chains of command and, above all, no proper accountability. Many Departments have a serious cultural problem, which is simply not being addressed.
	Last year, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who was then the Minister for the Cabinet Office, amid great fanfare launched new guidelines called "Data Handling Procedures". He promised
	"a culture that properly values, protects and uses information".—[ Official Report, 25 June 2008; Vol. 478, c. 26WS.]
	He also announced stronger accountability mechanisms within all Departments, but unfortunately those changes have delivered no substantial improvements. In fact, they have delivered little. Proper sanctions are needed. The Bill contains no sanctions, and we feel strongly that immunity of Departments from prosecution should be removed. Only by applying such sanctions will permanent secretaries and civil servants make the prevention of loss of data a key priority. We need to send a strong signal to all Departments and agencies that cavalier and unprofessional attitudes to our personal data and privacy will not be tolerated. I hope that the Minister will accept our new clause.
	I turn to our amendments 78 and 79. Amendment 78 is almost identical to new clause 38, which was tabled by the hon. Members for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). The official Opposition, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, have said for some time that it is essential that the Information Commissioner be given more power to control and monitor holders of data. That is why we support the principles behind clause 153. However, the clause has one glaring gap, as it does not provide any enforcement powers. If the assessment notice is made, and its subject refuses to comply, the Bill does not allow for any immediate sanction.
	Under our amendments 78 and 79, the Information Commissioner will be able to go to the county court, which must decide whether the assessment notice was properly issued, and whether there was a reasonable excuse for non-compliance. If the court decides for the commissioner, it will order the data controller to comply with the assessment notice. Failure to do so will result in the data controller being in contempt of court. We feel strongly that there is no point having an assessment notice regime without proper sanctions for non-compliance. As Sir Mark Walport and the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, said in their submission to the Committee:
	"There are also no meaningful sanctions for failure to comply with the requirements of an Assessment Notice: this needs strengthening in order for it to be taken seriously."
	I hope that the Minister will accept amendments 78 and 79.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, on which he can expand when he makes his speech.
	Amendments 80 to 85 relate to clause 155, which sets up the data-sharing code of practice. They would ensure that there is an affirmative resolution of both Houses before the commissioner issues the data-sharing code. Given that the Secretary of State is removing the key data-sharing provision, clause 154, from the Bill, why is it necessary to have a data-sharing code? Is that not a little suspicious and illogical? Surely the Secretary of Sate's credibility in the matter would be reinforced if he also withdrew clause 155. Otherwise, people will conclude that if the power to set up a data-sharing code is left in the Bill, the Government will return at some stage with their totally unacceptable data-sharing proposals. However, if the Secretary of State does decide that the data-sharing code proposals must stay in the Bill, surely it makes sense to accept our amendments 80 to 85.
	I turn to our amendments 86 to 88. In Committee, we discussed at length the apparent anomaly that the assessment notice regime applied to the public sector only. May I refer again to the submission to the Committee by Sir Mark Walport and Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner? The submission pointed out:
	"As we stated in the report, distinguishing between public, private and voluntary sectors makes little sense, especially as more information is shared across sectors whose boundary lines are forever shifting."
	The Information Commissioner went on to say:
	"Private and third sector bodies frequently carry out work for public sector ones. It is common for charities, for example, to carry out functions on behalf of local government. As it stands, we could inspect the local council but not the charity."
	I argued in Committee that as a consequence of the private sector's ever greater involvement with Government Departments, agencies and local government, there was an increased blurring of the barriers between the public and private sectors. I gave a couple of examples. The Crown Prosecution Service and the Solicitor-General have a large contract with what was LogicaCMG that covers the provision, support and maintenance of hardware and software applications used by the CPS, including the management of a number of large databases such as the witness management system and the graduated fee scheme for counsel.
	Another example relates to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, which manages a large number of public sector databases but also has a number of private sector contractors. In fact, of its 166 databases, 75 are maintained by the Department but 90 are run by private sector contractors. Obviously, there is substantial blurring between the two sectors. Amendments 23 and 24 would bring the private sector into the assessment notice regime. The Minister has argued that such an extension to the private sector would place extra burdens on business and conflict with the Hampton principles. My party believes passionately in reducing the burdens on business, so it is hard to ignore the Minister's concerns; she also raised various points about powers of entry. She feels that a more co-operative approach between business and the Information Commissioner would be desirable.
	However, I submit that there is a compromise solution. Amendments 86 to 88 would extend the less severe and substantially less burdensome information notice regime to the private sector. Crucially, the information notices in schedule 18 do not confer powers of entry, so why does the Minister not accept the amendments as a way to extend the Information Commissioner's powers to the private sector in a much less onerous manner? I urge the Minister to accept that argument. She has said clearly that she does not want the assessment notice regime to be extended to the private sector, and she has given her reasons for that, but surely our compromise solution would make a great deal of sense.
	I turn to Government amendment 25. We argued in Committee as powerfully as we could that clause 154—it was clause 152 at the time—should be deleted. In response, the Minister gave numerous reasons why the clause was needed. We had a vote and lost it. Then we heard that the Government were in the process of climbing down—unfortunately, that was announced in the Sunday press, rather than in Committee or on the Floor of the House. The Secretary of State then tabled his amendment.

Bridget Prentice: I am speaking a little sooner than I expected, but there we are. I begin with Government amendment 25, which is at the heart of this grouping on data sharing and data protection, and the associated consequential amendment 153. They will remove from the Bill the power to establish new information-sharing gateways by secondary legislation. The proposal in clause 154 for information-sharing orders stemmed from a recommendation of the independent data-sharing review, conducted by the commissioner, Richard Thomas, and Sir Mark Walport, the director of the Wellcome Trust. They recommended changes to the legal framework for data sharing, in part to support better public service provision. To counterbalance that power, the review recommended that there should be a transparent and consistent mechanism ensuring greater scrutiny while reducing the scope for confusion.
	Following the spirit of those recommendations, clause 154 included a raft of safeguards to ensure an appropriate level of public and parliamentary scrutiny. However, in Committee and elsewhere, we heard and understood the concerns that hon. Members and others expressed about the information-sharing gateway proposal, including that the power was open to misuse. It is important to make it clear that it was never the Government's intention to allow indiscriminate information sharing, regardless of any protections set up by the Data Protection Act.
	After a thorough consideration of the views expressed by Members of this House and by such outside organisations as the British Medical Association, which I met to discuss this very point, we have concluded that a more in-depth analysis of the features of an information-sharing power was needed. It is therefore right that we withdraw clause 154 from the Bill while we undertake that further work. That is a good example of how scrutiny in this place works, and although those who spoke for the Opposition parties had a small go at gloating, they did not go overboard. I appreciate that and I am grateful to them. We accept the humble pie that they proffered to us.
	The Government are clear that there are many benefits to sharing data, as I said in Committee. To deliver high-quality public services, Departments need to share personal information in a secure and appropriate fashion. Through such data sharing we can improve opportunities for the most disadvantaged, provide customer-focused public services, reduce the burden on businesses, implement policies effectively and detect fraud. We do not underestimate the risks attached to information sharing, nor will we let them blind us to the potential benefits. I assure the House that in taking the matter forward we will consider carefully the views expressed by all interested parties.
	The other Government amendment in this group, amendment 152, requires a brief explanation. New section 41A of the Data Protection Act 1998, inserted by clause 153 of the Bill, provides the Secretary of State with the power to designate, by order, those public authorities subject to the assessment notice regime. As our published delegated powers memorandum makes clear, we intended that that order-making power be subject to the negative resolution procedure. However, owing to an oversight we omitted to amend section 67 of the Data Protection Act, which determines the level of parliamentary scrutiny for all delegated powers in that Act. The amendment makes good that omission.
	Let me now move on to the other amendments that relate to assessment notices. They deal with three issues: the scope of the assessment notice regime, the sanctions for non-compliance and their relationship with civil penalties under section 55A of the Data Protection Act. Amendments 23 and 24, in the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), and amendment 133, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), deal with scope. Assessment notices constitute an important step towards improving public trust and confidence in the handling of personal information by public sector data controllers. They will create a formal system based upon the current arrangement of spot checks undertaken on Government Departments by the Information Commissioner, which aim to raise the awareness and compliance of public bodies with data protection principles.
	Clause 153 represents the statutory base for the commitment made by the Prime Minister in November 2007, after the loss of the data from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to which the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) referred, to provide the Information Commissioner with the power to spot check Departments. That power is therefore a specific answer to a specific issue. As the clause stands, it is already possible to include certain private or third sector data controllers within the scope of assessment notices. That would be in cases where those data controllers appear to the Secretary of State to exercise functions of a public nature, or are providing, under a contract made with a public authority, any service whose provision is a function of that authority.
	There are sound arguments for applying a higher level of scrutiny to public sector bodies. Data controllers in the public sector handle a variety of sensitive personal information that is necessary to fulfil their responsibilities, such as providing health and social services, fighting crime, and detecting fraud. Most of the information handled by public sector data controllers, or those working on their behalf, is vital to determine entitlements, responsibilities, and obligations. That citizens must provide their personal information to access essential services is, in this context, a defining feature of the relationship between the citizen and the public authority.
	For the private sector, the ability of the public to choose to go somewhere else is a powerful driver, encouraging businesses to look after personal information. Extending assessment notices to the private sector could, as a result, act as a significant additional regulatory burden. While I remain to be persuaded of the case for applying the assessment notice regime to all data controllers, we will continue to consider the points made by the Information Commissioner and by some Members of this House in support of those amendments. However, any move to include all data controllers within the scope of assessment notices would need to be carefully considered. We consider that clause 153 strikes a fair balance between the need to enhance the Information Commissioner's powers and the potential impact of those changes in view of the wider regulatory framework.
	Amendments 78 and 79 and new clause 38 deal with the issue of non-compliance. Specifically they seek to deal with non-compliance with an assessment notice as if it were a contempt of court. Again, I remain to be persuaded that a bespoke sanction for non-compliance with an assessment notice is needed. In practice, it is difficult to envisage a public sector body refusing to comply with an assessment notice, considering the bad publicity that would ensue from such a notice. That said, the Information Commissioner made it clear that he would like some kind of penalty or sanction for refusal to comply.
	Of course, the Information Commissioner already has a range of enforcement powers available to him for a failure to comply with the Data Protection Act. Information notices can be used alongside assessment notices if he reasonably requires information to assess compliance with data protection principles. If he discovers a breach of those principles during an assessment, he can issue an enforcement notice to compel the data controller to comply with data protection obligations. He also has powers to apply for a search warrant under schedule 9 to that Act. Arguably, any greater powers would be disproportionate and inconsistent with broader Government policy about the investigatory powers of regulators. Again, however, I am prepared to reflect carefully on the arguments that have been made as the Bill makes further progress.
	Amendment 88 would remove the proposed exemption from liability for a civil monetary penalty for serious breaches of the data protection principles in cases where information about such a breach comes to light following the issue of an assessment notice. Those monetary penalties, which are provided for in section 55A of the Data Protection Act, will apply in cases of deliberate breach and when a data controller is aware that there is a risk of serious breach but fails to take reasonable steps to prevent it.
	By contrast, as I have indicated, assessment notices are a valuable tool to raise compliance levels and to educate public bodies that are being assessed. That is why they do not require the existence of suspicion of non-compliance, or actual non-compliance, with the data protection principles. They are random spot checks. Given the nature of the assessment notice regime, we do not consider it appropriate for information gathered through that process to render a data controller liable to a civil monetary penalty. In any case, the commissioner can still employ his other enforcement tools as and when required throughout an assessment. For example, if he discovered a breach of the Data Protection Act during an assessment, he could still take enforcement action. As I have said, he could issue an enforcement notice under section 40 of that Act.
	New clause 19 would limit the existing Crown immunity under the Data Protection Act so that Government Departments would be open to prosecution under it. As the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk will know, Crown immunity means that emanations from the Crown are not ordinarily liable to prosecution for offences created either in statute or in common law. That includes Government Departments, and the limitation on the prosecution of Departments includes the offences in that Act.
	That is not to say, however, that Departments are not subject to adequate sanctions for breaches of data protection principles. They can still be subject to enforcement notices, claims for damages in a civil court or civil monetary penalties. That last point is particularly important because it means that financial penalties can be imposed on Government Departments. That range of other sanctions and penalties is sufficient for me to remain unconvinced that disapplying the normal rules on Crown immunity would make any material difference.
	Amendments 80 to 84 would make the Information Commissioner's codes of practice on assessment notices and data sharing subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The assessment notice code of practice is not subject to any parliamentary procedure, whereas the data sharing code is subject to the negative resolution procedure. Given the scope of those codes, I believe that we have probably got the level of parliamentary scrutiny right. They are not on a par with, for example, the codes of practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. However, if we have misjudged the level of scrutiny for those two codes of practice, I am pretty confident that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place will be quick to tell us that. We will, of course, consider carefully any recommendations that it makes.
	Amendment 85 would require the Information Commissioner to conduct an annual review of the data sharing code of practice. The Bill already obliges the commissioner to keep the code under review, and he is required to update it if he becomes aware that its content could result in the UK being in breach of any of its community or international obligations. My concern is that the amendment could prevent the code from being revised quickly once a breach has been identified. It might be a little too rigid in calling specifically for an annual review. The Bill will give the Information Commissioner scope to reconsider and review the code as and when he sees fit. We believe that that is right, given that his role as the independent data protection regulator is to provide the most up-to-date guidance to facilitate data controllers' compliance with the Data Protection Act.
	Finally, amendments 86 and 87 deal with information notices. Section 43 of the Data Protection Act provides the Information Commissioner with the power to issue a data controller with an information notice. That can require a data controller to provide the commissioner with specified information in a specified form, to assess compliance with the data protection principles. The commissioner can issue a notice to any data controller as long as he reasonably requires information to determine their compliance. Failure to comply with an information notice is a criminal offence. The amendments would extend the commissioner's power to issue an information notice to data processors as well as data controllers. The meaning of a data processor is limited to those handling data on behalf of Government Departments and designated public authorities.
	The structure of the Data Protection Act places the responsibility for personal information on the data controller, not the data processor. Introducing a power to serve a notice on a data processor could shift the regulatory balance of the Act. All data being processed by or on behalf of an organisation must be covered by the data controller's registration. It is the responsibility of the data controller to obtain the information that the commissioner requires. I fear that the amendments would represent a significant change to the data protection regime, so the matter might be better suited to consideration in the review of the European directive that is under way. I therefore hope that the Opposition will not press those amendments.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge expressed concern about the Information Commissioner and Google Street View. I have to say that I could not find my street on it, but that might be because I am sometimes technologically illiterate when it comes to such things. I understand that the commissioner is keeping the situation under review, and of course anyone can request to have their image removed. I understand that Google is quite surprised by how few people have so far asked to have their image removed, but that is another matter.

Bridget Prentice: The hon. Lady makes a good point, and she is quite right. Although it may be fun playing about with these things on computers, there are potentially sensitive issues attached to them. I shall certainly ensure that the Information Commissioner takes up that point when he reviews the situation.
	I wish to respond to some of the points that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk made. He asked why we needed a data sharing code of practice if we are dropping the data sharing order-making power. Of course, the code will be wider than the order-making power and contain practical guidance on the sharing of personal data and other guidance that promotes good practice in data sharing. It will ensure that the availability of practical and up-to-date guidance about how to share personal data is in accordance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about extending information notices to the private sector and suggested that his amendments might be seen as a compromise. Information notices already extend to private sector data controllers because they can be served on any data controller. I hope that that answers those points.
	Although I cannot commend any of the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, and the hon. Members for North-West Norfolk and for Cambridge have tabled, I want to offer an assurance. We will continue to listen carefully to the arguments for extending the scope of assessment notices and providing some form of sanction for non-compliance. I do not want to raise expectations, but I also do not want to give the impression that clause 153, as drafted, represents the last word on the matter. I hope that, if and when we make further changes to that provision, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk will remember that I said it here first.

Douglas Hogg: I rise merely to express my anxiety about this House is creating a regime that is unduly prescriptive. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) that sentencing is one of the most difficult functions of the judiciary and it has been enormously complicated by the volume of legislation that we have passed over the past 10 years and, if one is honest, many years before that. For example, indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection and extended sentences of various kinds are extraordinarily difficult for the judges to determine. My own feeling is that they are also largely unjust in their implication and I dislike them very much. I also feel that Parliament needs to be—

Planning and Development (Essex)

Hugo Swire: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. I have been out with some fishermen and one only has to look at their radar and sonar scanners to see the large amounts of plastic and other debris in Lyme bay. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister thinks that they should be compensated, because a lot of that stuff has still not been recovered. However, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come to why I think it questionable that a boat in that condition should have been anywhere near either of our coastal areas.
	The Lyme bay area is part of a world heritage site and part of the Jurassic coast—I should declare that I am a trustee of the Jurassic coast trust—but it is also the subject of a fisheries exclusion zone, in recognition of its status as
	"one of the UK's richest marine wildlife sites".
	I would like to quote from a DEFRA document, "A summary of responses to the consultation on measures to protect marine biodiversity interests in Lyme Bay from the impact of fishing with dredges and other towed gear"—I do not know what the acronym for that is, but it would help if there was one—which was published in March 2008. The document states:
	"The Bay hosts some of the UK's most important reef habitat and is considered to be both nationally and internationally important in conservation terms."
	The Devon coast is an area that depends heavily on tourism and our coastline is very important to the economic and social well-being of our community. A new study, conducted by the non-profit regeneration consultancy Era Ltd, on the Jurassic coast suggests that it has exceeded expectations in bringing economic, social and cultural benefits to the region since it was awarded UNESCO world heritage site status in 2001. Its status has given a boost to the area of Dorset and East Devon in terms of learning and education, business opportunities, facilities and services, especially benefiting the local tourism industry—and we in East Devon are rightly very proud and also very protective of maintaining this special coastline. Does the Minister consider that Lyme bay, given its recognized importance as a marine habitat and its UNESCO world heritage status, is an appropriate site to be used for a shipping emergency?
	Lyme bay is also an important wintering site for many bird species and within two days of the beaching more than 900 birds were reported oiled. It is estimated that for every bird found oiled on the shore, between three and 10 times as many will have been oiled at sea. The wreck of the Napoli may also have threatened as many as 28 sites of special scientific interest, including the Exe estuary, Chesil beach and the Fleet SSSIs. Will the Minister therefore ensure that provisions specifically to keep ships away from environmentally sensitive areas, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has just suggested, and legislation covering navigation are built into the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, particularly in the light of the Napoli incident?
	The beaching of the Napoli was an event that highlighted serious deficiencies in many aspects of dealing with such an occurrence, which is why action must be taken now. This report must be heeded, the national contingency plan must be strengthened, maritime legislation must be adapted and a single person to take charge on land must be appointed. Only two months ago, police admitted that they were powerless to stop members of the public helping themselves to sawn timber that had washed up on the Kent coast, which had been lost by a Russian ship, the Sinegorsk.
	For an island nation with a proud maritime heritage, it is now high time that the Government demonstrated some form of real commitment to the shipping industry and seaside communities and ensured that costly situations such as this are avoided in the future. The channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world and although economic times are more constrained at present, with container ships less frequent along our coast than they once were, that is not to say that things will not pick up again.
	Figures from Lloyd's Register-Fairplay show that as the world fleet has grown, so has the propensity for accidents to happen. In fact, the number of serious navigational accidents rose from around 30 in 2000 to more than 120 in 2006, and statistics now show that a ship is twice as likely to be involved in a serious grounding, collision or contact accident today compared with only five years ago. The grounding of the Napoli demonstrated the costly dangers to a marine nation such as ours, and while mistakes were made, this need not happen again. Instead, it is time to grasp this opportunity to learn lessons and implement real changes that can prevent these disasters in future. When will the Minister finally listen to what he is being told from all sides and implement effective change? If the Government are not simply paying lip service to marine conservation and planning, they will adopt the recommendations set out in the report.
	Finally, I would like to add that without the professionalism and efforts of all those who worked tirelessly on the operation, including Robin Middleton, the SOSREP at the time, the situation could have been far worse. What I and those affected by this and similar incidents would like to see is these actions replicated on future operations on land. The Napoli incident has exposed many problems that must be taken seriously and addressed by the Government as soon as possible. This event could and should be used as a template for future containership casualties and provides an opportunity to frame legislation accordingly.